Regarding disabled parking

[appendix]

I work for a small company. We have office space in a small building which houses a number of other companies. There is just about enough adequate parking for all employees in terms of number of spaces.
Here is where I think I've messed up. I'm operations manager. The company is too small to have HR (we outsource things like payroll) so often HR adjacent queries end up with me.

We have 2 disabled employees. One (Sue) has significantly mobility limitations and uses a big motorised wheelchair. The other (Lynda) has less significant mobility issues (ie doesn't need a wheelchair, can walk small distances.) Both are have blue badges.

There are 3 disabled spaces in the carpark. One can be discounted as it's always in use by an employee of another company in the building who starts work very early. Out of the remaining 2 only one is big enough to accommodate Sue's needs (electric ramp for a big wheelchair etc). The issue we have is that Lynda insists on parking in it. She gets to work earlier than Sue who has childcare limitations and always parks there. It's causing a lot of frustration and ill will, especially as the other non wheelchair sized space is actually closer to the entrance, so it seems a perverse choice.

There has been a lot of grumbling among staff about this. It was especially bad a few days ago when Sue had to call for assistance - she had to get out of her car at the entrance and a colleague had to park her vehicle for her. Lynda sits watching this. Other staff members have spoken to her and asked if she could park in the other, closer space but she refuses.

Note- Sue and Lynda have clashed a bit over the years- there's only one disabled loo on our floor and yet they seem to always need it at the same time etc. I've been reliably informed that Lynda won't park close to the entrance because then her start and leave times will be visible to everyone- the other larger space is around a bend and can be accessed via a side door so her in and outs are not visible.

Anyway, we have spoken multiple times to the people who own the offices. They give no shits. The car park is apparently compliant in terms of spaces and they're not prepared to do anything more.

Our company owner has now said that whichever employee gets in first needs to park next to her reserved space and let reception know. When Sue arrives the person in the space next to the reserved one nips out, moves their car and Sue parks across both spaces. Owner then just parks where she can find a space.

It's not ideal especially in the rain. It's caused massive ill will towards Lynda who has just come to me and said she feels she's being bullied due to her disability. (She's not being included in lunch orders or social stuff organised by staff themselves, although she is fully included in terms of her job.) Honestly the company owner doesn't feel particularly warm towards her.

I'm not a HR person. I felt that as she wasn't being excluded in terms of work etc there's not a lot I can do about people liking her and I pretty much told her that. I was talking to a friend about it though and they said we could actually be in trouble for not including her in lunches/ social things, especially as it's because of issues caused by a disability. (She's invited to all work organised events, just not informal staff drinks / lunches/ chats/ coffee rounds organised by the staff)

I'm going to suggest getting some HR advice but was I wrong?

So, given that the employer doesn’t own the building and can’t alter the facilities, what would you suggest ? If Sue and Lynda don’t come to some sort of agreement about their shared use of the facilities this will drag on until someone eventually raises a grievance. You’ve had a lot to say about what shouldn’t happen, so what’s your solution ?

The op left this thread days ago with the intention of getting HR advice.

A sensible, pragmatic option which will respect everyone.

How do you suppose, based on no knowledge of the situation, I would be able to come up with a ‘solution’?

Lynda might be a bully.

Sue might be a bully.

Lynda might need a lot of adjustments for her role or very few.

There might be another accessible toilet Sue or Lynda can access.

The normal toilets might be able to be altered if needed.

The other people in the office might be bullies.

Lynda or Sue might be fiddling their time sheets.

The company owner might be wonderful and inclusive as the op claims, or not as the evidence suggests.

The parking situation may be stuck as it is or there might be other work arounds.

Lynda might be incalcitrant.

Sue might be incalcitrant.

I could invent 50 scenarios from that which would all have different solutions.

If you can ‘solve’ the situation based on this information you are a better woman than me!

The employer doesn't need to find a solution to the toileting issue. Their responsibility is to provide suitable facilities for their employees. They've done that by providing an accessible toilet. How users share that toilet is their own responsibility to sort out.

Same with the parking issue. The employer is responsible for providing parking spaces which can accommodate their employees with disabilities. They have failed to do that for Sue because her vehicle can not be used within any of the bays. They have provided a solution for that by allowing her to park over two bays. How any other BB user uses the disabled bays is not the responsibility of the employer to have a say in.

Again, that’s not what’s being suggested. Sue has no alternative to the accessible toilet - the standard facility won’t fit her wheelchair. But it’s absolutely not up to anyone else to force Lynda to use the standard facilities - that’s a given. She’s just as entitled to use them as Sue. But let’s assume the OP is right, and that each time Sue heads for the loo Lynda gets there first. That puts Sue at a disadvantage because she has no alternative to the accessible toilet.

in addition, no one knows whether either one has continence problems, but in my experience those who are wheelchair bound - especially those with spinal injuries or conditions inevitably do. So if that’s the case, Sue is even more disadvantaged. Lynda may also have continence issues given that she has a degenerative condition. So, given the restrictions on the employer, other than the two disabled people cooperating in their sharing of the facility, what’s the solution here ?

It seems common sense to me that if Lynda is willing and able she could choose to give Sue priority on the occasions she needs the loo at the same time, and use the standard loo if she is able. There has never been any suggestion that this would be anything but a choice - a concession, not a necessity. Like it or not, there may be different levels of need here and until that’s properly assessed, there will continue to be problems.

Lots of opposition to the various suggestions put forward here, but no one wants to take a stab at what they would do, only what they wouldn’t. The alternative as far as l can see, is that one or other of them will inevitably have an embarrassing and very public accident because the loo is occupied, and then raise a grievance because their needs are not being met.

The solution can only be found between Sue and Lynda. It doesn't actually matter what anyone else thinks they should do. The employer cannot suggest Lynda use a different toilet. That will open up the employer to accusations of discrimination. The toilet being occupied when Sue gets to it is not a failure by the employer. It's not even a failure. It's what happens with toilets used by multiple people.

No solution can tell Lynda, or suggest or heavily imply, that she must use the standard facilities

They have a solution for Sue's wheelchair but the able bodied staff find this inconvenient and think Lynda should be inconvenienced instead because they perceived her to be "less disabled"

The office is in a shared building so they are unable to assign bays (and assigning Sue the wider space without first assessing Lynda's needs too is not ok). They could try taking to the VIP who uses the space next to the disabled bay to see if they could swap bays with the company VIP so that Sue can use the disabled bay and the VIP space next to it. But any solution regarding the disabled bays must take in to account that at any point either the company or one of the others in the building may employ another BB holder who can use whichever space they chose, or indeed a visitor could.

As they cannot make adjustments to the building then they could well have a case for breaking contract as the building company are unable to provide for their needs.

If hybrid walking is something that suits the business then Sue and Lynda working alternate days in the office could be a solution - since both sets of needs cannot apparently be accommodated at the same time

The bullying and exclusion of Lynda needs to be dealt with immediately and any "solution" must take into account both sets of needs and must not favour Sue just because she is more visibly disabled

Pretty much agree with all of this, but I don’t think anyone should be making assumptions on what’s visible in either case, and at the risk of being flamed, Sue may well have a different or higher level of need simply by being confined to a wheelchair because that in itself brings on other related conditions. And the fact that the toilet facilities are involved means that hidden conditions such as continence issues - again very likely to be present in those who are wheelchair bound, but may also affect Lynda who seemingly has a degenerative condition - may also need to be taken into account. It’s a minefield and I don’t think there’s a solution outside of Lynda and Sue working together to their mutual benefit. Hybrid working might work though - that’s maybe one way to go. If they’re not in the office at the same time, problem solved.

Problem solved as long as another disabled person with any overlapping needs is never employed in that company (or any other that uses the car park).

Maybe they could institute a one in one out policy.

Can we stop using ableist language like, "wheelchair bound", please.

We aren't bound to our wheelchairs. Unless we're into that kind of thing.

Indeed.

We’ve had “worse off”, “wheelchair bound” and “wheelchair ridden” in the last few pages.

One hopes that any of us that do enjoy being bound to our wheelchairs aren’t engaging in it in the office!

Sorry, I think I used the term wheelchair bound too, but I’m a crumbly and I’m used to that term being used in the past to distinguish between wheelchair users who can walk and those who cannot. I’m a wheelchair user and I don’t find the term particularly offensive, but I appreciate that some do. Apologies.

I think that’s an awful thing to say. If this is the poster I think you’re referring to, they haven’t said anything of the sort, but have stressed the need for assessment and a solution to be worked out between the two people in question. And the last few posts on this thread seem to be saying the same thing - in the absence of any other solution it’s in the hands of Lynda and Sue.

I’ve been in similar situations to those mentioned here myself and have first hand experience of how disability support workers - specially those who are disabled themselves- can think outside the box and come up with solutions that may be unorthodox, but which work for the person concerned. In my experience what is uppermost in their minds is doing the best they can for the people concerned. And also in my experience, is the fact that while reasonable adjustment is the responsibility of the employer, for it to be successful it requires the participation of other employees who will be working with the disabled person.

There is a well known organisation - not mentioning any names here - that employs a mix of disabled and non-disabled people, and who, as part of their induction, require employees to spend time in a wheelchair so that they gain the perspective of wheelchair users and the unique difficulties they face every day. Without knowing these difficulties, and without knowing the level of disability that can’t be seen, it’s impossible to say whether Sue is more disabled than Lynda or vice versa. There has been some utterly offensive and ableist language used on the the thread - the worst of which seems to refer to the ‘pity value’ of Sue being in a wheelchair and therefore perceived as having the greater need.

Sue and Lynda clearly have levels of need which need to be assessed. Sue is a full time wheelchair user, indicating a high level of need. Lynda has a degenerative condition - also indicating a high level of need. As a disabled person myself I cannot for the life of me, fathom out why it’s so offensive for posters to consider that they each have a valid case, and should have the opportunity to put that forward at a needs assessment. The employer clearly can’t do very much because they don’t own the premises. Therefore the solution is in the hands of Lynda and Sue.

the worst of which seems to refer to the ‘pity value’ of Sue being in a wheelchair

Do you honestly think that pity isn’t part of ableism?

Haven't you ever been told “I’m so sorry”, or “can I pray for you?”, or “you poor thing, you’re so brave”.

Don’t you think the charity fundraising efforts aren’t based on people seeing the disabled people suffering and feeling sorry for them?

How about the ‘cripple boy’ money collecting statues?

People pity the disabled. People think wheelchair users are the most disabled, therefore they get a greater amount of pity aimed at them.

I agree. Charity fund raising has always been based on the pity principle. Some prominent disability charities use members themselves for fundraising because they’re more profitable. The pity factor here seems to be Sue’s workmates regarding her as more disabled by virtue of the fact that she’s in a wheelchair. But I do think to a certain extent if someone is a full time wheelchair user, they face unique challenges and without that experience it’s difficult to appreciate just how difficult life can be from that perspective.

That’s not to say that Lynda’s life isn’t equally as difficult in different ways. As I’ve tried to advocate throughout the thread - it’s not about the disability itself, it’s the level of need it confers. Without an assessment of their individual needs, it’s impossible to sort this out - even with an assessment the employer is limited in what else they can do, so as others have said, in the end it’s down to Sue and Lynda to find their way. I think the situation is made more difficult by the fact that there appears to be bad feeling between them. It’s always been my experience that disabled people will support each other wherever possible, but I doubt that will be possible here.

Lynda sounds like a right pita

It wasn't an awful thing to say. A poster on this thread has said they work with disabled people but has also talked about Lynda can use the standard facilities, which they don't know is true and are basing it entirely on two points:

1. She doesn't use a wheelchair- there are numerous reasons why someone not in a wheelchair may be unable to use the standard facilities, especially if those facilities are small and cramped
2. She has used the standard facilities in the past when on a night out - her condition is a worsening one and she hasn't been invited out recently as the office have all taken a disliking to her so she may well not use the standard facilities now

It's also not ableism to point out the inherent ableism in "judging" pity levels based on visible need

And if you read their posts, they also made it very clear that an assessment should be carried out to ascertain the level of need of both. There is no suggestion that this should be based on what’s gone on in the past, only that Lynda has at some point demonstrated that she could use standard facilities at and that perhaps this could be investigated so that Lynda and Sue can work it out between them. This poster also pointed out that visible need doesn’t tell you what’s going on under the surface, and that there could be continence problems for Sue because she’s in a wheelchair and Lynda because she has a progressive condition. Hidden disability applies to both of them equally - you can’t look at Sue and say that everything you see is all there is, any more than you can Lynda.

A disability support worker, who is disabled themselves (correct me if I’m wrong here, but that’s the impression I had) is likely to have extensive experience and having been on the receiving end of ‘reasonable adjustment’ several times I can only tell you that’ I’ve been grateful for the lateral thinking of support workers and the sometimes unorthodox solutions for various situations. It’s not all black and white - sometimes you have to compromise to get the best solution for everyone involved.

Does the person from the other company who parks in the large disabled bay display a blue badge? If not then 'd be inclined to find out who the owner is & ask them not to park there. Ask a warden to ticket it each time they park if they don't display a badge. I'd also suggest you allocate the parking spaces to Lynda & Sue so they each have their own space, meaning Sue has the space she needs. Explain to Lynda that her needs are being met as she has a reserved bay to park in however, Sue's needs are priority with her needing the lager space to get her chair out & that it causes too much disruption & disturbance for her to rely on others having to leave their work to help her park. Lyndas Manager needs to be having words with her about her time keeping also so she's knows they are aware of why she's wanting to park where she does.

The building and car park don’t belong to the company owner. They can’t allocate the parking spaces because the car park is open to the public. There are three disabled spaces, one disabled driver from another company parks there and the person who occupies the larger disabled space is Lynda. Who has a disabled badge. You absolutely cannot assume that Sue’s needs are greater because she’s in a wheelchair - Lynda has a progressive condition, so may have different but equivalent needs. It needs a proper assessment and cooperation from Lynda and Sue. Lynda’s timekeeping issues are heresay at the moment and to single her out for investigation would be discriminatory. If she is leaving early they need to find out why and whether it’s disability related because if it is, then her needs are clearly not being met.

Thank goodness you don't have a management position or own a company. You'd lose the shirt off your back after the disability discrimination case

@appendix How did you get on OP?